<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 07th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2336/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt.Mangalamma,W/o Late Puttaswamy.2) Kumar Veerendra,Aged about 13 years.3) Kumar Sureendra,Aged about 10 years.All are S/o Late Puttaswamy,(Both are minors represented by their Mother Smt.Mangallamma)Residing at Neraluru Village,Veerupakshipura Hobli,Chennapatna Taluk.Advocate – Sri.K.R.Anantha Murthy.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Panchayat,Bangalore Rural District,K.G Road,Bangalore – 560 009.2) Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Panchyath,Ramanagara District,Ramanagara.3) Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Panchyath,Ramanagara District,Ramanagara.4) Assistant Executive Engineer,Panchyathraj Engineering Sub-Division, Magadi.5. Chief Secretary,Government of Karnataka,Vidhana Souda,Bangalore – 560 001.6) Life Insurance Corporation India,Bangalore Division,B.M Road,Chennapatna - 571501Sri.N.Shashishekar - Advocate for OP.2 & 4.Sri.S.M.Gajendran – Advocate for OP.6.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant No.1 husband Puttaswamy was working in the office of Zilla Panchyath, Bangalore Rural District, as a watchman. Complainant No.2 & 3 are the sons of Puttaswamy. The said Puttaswamy took three L.I.C policies from OP.6 under the salary deduction scheme bearing No.362074466, 611480247 and 722357083. The premium was deducted for his salary by OP.1 to 4 promptly. Puttaswamy died on 14.07.2004. Leaving behind the present complainants as his legal heirs. After the death of Puttaswamy complainants approached the OP to pay the insurance amount, but their efforts went in futile. OP.6 sent a cheque for Rs.19,250/- only with respect to policy No.362074466, other two polices are not settled. It is stated that those policies are lapsed due to the non payment of the premium in time. It is the responsibility of OP.1 to 4 to deduct the monthly premium from his salary and send it to OP.6. If there is a negligence caused by OP.1 to 4 for that complainants can’t be penalized. When their repeated requests and demands went in vain they issued the legal notice on 18.08.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On behalf of OP.1 to 5 a common version is filed mainly contending that the husband of the complainant has remained unauthorized absence for many more months. Hence the salary of Puttaswamy was not drawn. Whenever the salary was drawn premium is deducted and it is sent OP.6. OP.1 to 5 prepare to assist the complainant in settling the insurance claim, but it is an obligation on the part of OP.6 to settle the claim. Complaint filed against OP.1 to 5 is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> OP.6 filed separate version mainly contending that they have not received the premium as contemplated well within the stipulated time from the pay drawing officer. Due to non payment of premium in time, two policies stood lapsed. As regards one policy bearing No.362074466, which accrued paid up value was paid to the complainant which complainant received without any objections and passed the receipt to that regard. Now they can’t agitate the same relief. The complaint is also barred by time because the death of the life assured has taken place in the month of July 2004 whereas complaint is filed in 2008. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of OP.6. Hence OP.6 is not liable to settle the claim. Among these grounds, OP.6 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the husband of complainant No.1, father of complainant No.2 & 3 Puttaswamy took three policies from OP.6. The premium has to be paid out of his salary and the policies are under the salary deduction scheme. It is also not at dispute that the said Puttaswamy died on 14.07.2004 and these complainants are his heirs. Now the grievance of the complainants is that after the death of Puttaswamy they did approach the OP to settle the insurance claim but unfortunately OP.6 settled the claim with respect to only policy No.362074466 and paid a meager amount of Rs.19,250/-. With regard to other two policies OP.6 repudiated it on the ground that the policies stood lapsed for want of payment of the premium in time.<br /> <br /> 7. It is the contention of the complainants that it is the responsibility of OP.1 to 5 to deduct the premium out of the salary and send it to the OP.6. If OP.1 to 4 committed fault in that regard for that complainant’s can’t be blamed. On the other hand the documents produced by the litigating parties clearly goes to show that the said Puttaswamy remained unauthorized absence not once but on several occasions, hence his salary was not drawn. When his salary is not drawn, premium is not deducted and due to the non-deduction of the premium it was not forwarded to the OP.6. Pay distribution register extract is produced which speaks to the unauthorized absence of Puttaswamy and non drawal of the salary in time and premium was not forwarded. When that is so, we find substance in the defence of OP.6. Complainants have not disputed the fact of the unauthorized absence of Puttaswamy and the salary being not drawn for months together.<br /> <br /> 8. According to the OP.6 they are expected to receive the premium on the due date with grace a period of one month but for more than 6 – 7 months they have not received the premium with respect to the two policies referred to above. Of course as regards policy No.362074466 they have paid the paid up value which complainants receives without any objections and passed the voucher. Now they can’t agitate the same relief again before this Forum. We find substance in this defence also. It is further contended by the OP that O.S No.109/2005 was filed by Siddamma may be the mother of Puttaswamy against complainant No.1, wherein the status of the LIC policies was also noted then both of them filed a joint memo and settled the suit. The employer has confirmed in writing about the non deduction of the premium. When that is so, OP.6 can’t held responsible for the lapse of the policies for want of premium.<br /> <br /> 9. We also find force in the defence of the OP that though Puttaswamy died in the month of July 2004, no such steps are taken to file immediate complaint alleging the deficiency in service against OP’s. But this complaint came to be filed after lapse of nearly 4 years. There is no explanation with regard to the delay in filing the complaint. So viewed from any angle the LIC polices are lapsed and the life assured failed to pay the premium. At least these complainants would have paid the same and got renewed the policy. When Puttaswamy came to know of the fact of non deduction of the premium out of his salary which is not regularly drawn he would have made some arrangements to pay the premium by himself but no such steps are taken. So there is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainants as well as Puttaswamy. <br /> <br /> 10. Under such circumstances they can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP’s. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />